If Ron Paul is not on the ballot, I'm seriously considering Gary.
- Thread starter Romulus
- Start date
specsaregood
Member
- Joined
- May 21, 2007
- Messages
- 39,143
I'd just as soon not vote for a presidential candidate if Ron is not on the ballot. Unless Romney goes way out of his way to support our guys in the meantime.
TheGrinch
Member
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2012
- Messages
- 3,995
I agree. If Johnson actually had a real chance to win the presidency, then I'd have some real concerns about him, but he's a protest vote, to say that until those others take a stance against things like NDAA and other attacks on liberty, my vote will go to someone who, even if far from perfect, at least represents the ideals we're trying to bring back to the mainstream.
It's a protest vote, so I don't understand why he has to be completely ideologically pure like Ron, when we know he's not going to be the next president. The "lesser of two evils" might be a bad vote if you're choosing the next president, but that's not what a vote for Johnson is for... It's to support our ideals and show our strength of numbers, so that future candidates might have a bit more viability both in the major and 3rd parties.
If you're viewing this as ideological purity, then feel free to write in Dr. Paul and probably not have your vote counted at all. For me though, if I'm going to vote, then I'm going to send a message: AOBE "Anyone but establishment".
It's a protest vote, so I don't understand why he has to be completely ideologically pure like Ron, when we know he's not going to be the next president. The "lesser of two evils" might be a bad vote if you're choosing the next president, but that's not what a vote for Johnson is for... It's to support our ideals and show our strength of numbers, so that future candidates might have a bit more viability both in the major and 3rd parties.
If you're viewing this as ideological purity, then feel free to write in Dr. Paul and probably not have your vote counted at all. For me though, if I'm going to vote, then I'm going to send a message: AOBE "Anyone but establishment".
angelatc
Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2007
- Messages
- 50,703
I refuse to not vote. I'd vote for the freaking Green Party just to let them know I didn't stay home.
specsaregood
Member
- Joined
- May 21, 2007
- Messages
- 39,143
Well I'd show up to vote for other stuff on the ballot, i'll just leave the president field blank.
Weston White
Member
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2007
- Messages
- 4,956
WIRP! WIRP! WIRP! NOBP!
This is the best reason to vote for Johnson.
Not to mention that your vote might actually count for something in getting LP ballot access in your state going forward.
As someone involved more with the LP than with the GOP, I'd like to see someone more principled on the top of the ticket, but with so many "rothbardian" libertarians working in the GOP this cycle , it's to be expected that the national LP couldn't find a better philosophically grounded candidate.
Hell, I voted for someone who actively dissed RP last time, GJ at least gave RP props during the GOP debates
kahless
Member
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,200
That sounds about right. Romney does not appear to be making any concessions to Ron and you hear Ron saying he may not have a speaking slot. So why would I even bother voting for Romney. Gary seems to be the way to go as a protest vote.
I have to decide whether I want to even remain in the Republican party at this point. I hate what they stand for and the only reason I registered R is because of Ron since my beliefs are about 98% in-line with him. I know what people are going to say, remain to help vote for our liberty candidates and change the party from within. But it is just pains me to be part of this party regardless in its current form.
TheGrinch
Member
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2012
- Messages
- 3,995
Republican is just an arbitrary word that has meant completely different things at different points in history. If you despise something, you don't just turn your head and pretend it's not there, when you have the opportunity to change what the word "republican" means.
Now if we could actually gain traction for a 3rd party, then I'm all for it, but in the current two-party dominated monopoly, it might be far too late to make a 3rd party viable... Hell, it might be too late to reform the republican party before it's too late and the country falls apart, but the stakes are too high to not try any way that we can to make gains for liberty... Hell, I think we've already exceeded realistic expectations, to where it might not actually take that long to have a sizeable liberty contingent in all levels of government.
HigherVision
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2012
- Messages
- 841
I'm going to vote for him because I like him and I want him to win. I like Ron more but since he's not going to be on the ballot and someone that I like is then I'm going to vote for that person.
specsaregood
Member
- Joined
- May 21, 2007
- Messages
- 39,143
un/fortunately the debates are privately funded through a nonprofit, so it is tough to make the argument that we should force them to accept other parties.
But, I am not completely opposed to the idea of using govt for the debates and forcing them to allow all political party candidates where the person is on the ballot in enough states to get a majority of delegates. I wonder if we could even get Rand to sponsor such a bill.
Is anybody else interested in a legislative solution?
specsaregood
Member
- Joined
- May 21, 2007
- Messages
- 39,143
I'd say not just Gary. but rather using the criteria i suggested above. If your party/independent is on enough ballots where you could in theory win enough electors, then you should be included.
They dont have the sponsors for 2012 up yet.
But here are previous sponsors:
http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=national-debate-sponsors
Scheduled debates:
http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2012-debate-schedule/2012-presidential-debate-schedule/
Last edited:
Why even get out of bed...
Depends on the situation.
I'm still considering voting for Gary. Otherwise the idiots win.
TheGrinch
Member
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2012
- Messages
- 3,995
There is no one way to change the course of the country, but if you don't vote, then you can guarantee that it will be one way that you won't... People aren't involved in this campaign because they think it's that good of a chance that Dr. Paul gets elected. We're doing everything we can, from taking over positions to yes, voting, because we have no better choice than to try...
And yes voting can be important if you can get to a tipping point to where you have a majority on your side, and with every person we're waking up, it's one more person that will no longer buy into the establishment's BS. That alone is worth voting, to show them that they're not alone, and it's not hopeless.
Apathy about a bad situation changes nothing, and so surely does choosing not to vote at all. You can still influence other ways, while making your vote heard. If millions more apathetic individuals realized this, then we'd have millions more votes on our side. Votes add up in the long run.
specsaregood
Member
- Joined
- May 21, 2007
- Messages
- 39,143
I'm fairly certain they win either way.
Similar threads
